Which goal was better

[Azzurri]

Think it's the other way round. I've played a lot of football and know for a fact that i'd have more chance of scoring Sigurdsson's than Rooneys.

Yep. Not sure how anyone who's played even a bit of football could see Sigurdsson's as the harder technique.

 

[banno]

A penalty is harder to score than a shot from 6 miles away then? People keep saying an empty net as if it was a tap in. Getting it on target was difficult enough, the skill was to hit it in a way that Ogbonna especially wouldn't get to it.

I am not saying it wasn't a wonder goal.....it was. It doesn't take away the fact that on target and it's a goal. Brilliant technique yes, Wonder goal Yes, but still on target = goal. He did what he had to do with talent but Siggys was harder to score

 

[Azzurri]

I am not saying it wasn't a wonder goal.....it was. It doesn't take away the fact that on target and it's a goal. Brilliant technique yes, Wonder goal Yes, but still on target = goal. He did what he had to do with talent but Siggys was harder to score

Could easily say the same about Sigurdsson's, then. Any keeper on his line could have chested it down never mind caught it. They're both opportunistic strikes, neither flew in the top corner.

 

[The binman chronicles]

If there had been a goalkeeper in his goal, he wouldn't have taken the shot. Insane argument. It was all about opportunism timing, audacity, speed of thought, skill and flawless technique.

He had a split second to react to the surroundings and intentionally hit it where and how he did BECAUSE there was no keeper. He was celebrating before it went in, because it was deliberate. And to be clear, these situations occur in matches up and down the country on a regular basis... Keeper comes rushing out, clears it, lands to a player in the opposition half... And 999 times out of 1000, the player it falls to will take a touch before he shoots, if he shoots at all. Most people would control it and lay off to a winger to start a counter.

Simple logic tells you its easier to hit a ball further when it's bouncing in step with you and you can get under it, than it is to hit a ball bouncing towards you, and from further away as well.

And further to the argument, Sigurdsson's goal, the keeper was on the edge of the box when it fell to him, and it didn't go in the top corner like some are saying either. It dropped just over the line if I remember correctly.

You are completely missing the point of what I am saying. Of course he wouldn't try if the keeper was back and how he scored it made it a great goal, but no one can deny there was a huge target to aim at. Take away how he hit it for a moment, it's a great goal just not my favourite.

 

[Gladystweet]

 

[Kever10]

You could change this poll to:

Have you ever kicked a ball before?

No

Yes

I think the results would be similar given some of the reasoning behind these answers.

If you still hate Rooney for leaving 13 years ago, fine. If you are Icelandic and love Gylfi, fine.

But seriously, don't try and say Sigurdsson's goal is in any way harder to score than Rooney's or it makes you look like you haven't got a clue.

 

[Steve0]

Of course it did. It was an open goal so just get it on target. Not saying it was easy but it's true......on target = goal. Still a brilliant goal and great technique

That just isn't true though is it?!

Taking one joule of energy of the shot and it leads to the very real possibility of Ogbonna and/or Hart getting back.

He could not have hit it lower, that's a given.

So the margin of error can only be hitting it higher. When the ball crosses the line Hart is about 12 yards away (even after giving up running at full speed). This means even hitting even harder and even higher with even more top spin....something I'm not sure could obey the laws of physics.

So that basically means the margin of error means hitting it higher but slower; higher means more time, slower (obvs) means more time, taking power of means less top spin so more time....add those up and Joe Hart's getting back in time.

Then we add in the fact the ball is travelling at speed towards him meaning Rooney had very little time to make his calculations before hitting it, the ball is also bobbling....

So it's not even a case of 'just' getting it on target and furthermore even if it WERE, accomplishing that is so difficult it scarcely devalues the goal.

 

[Kever10]

You are completely missing the point of what I am saying. Of course he wouldn't try if the keeper was back and how he scored it made it a great goal, but no one can deny there was a huge target to aim at. Take away how he hit it for a moment, it's a great goal just not my favourite.

And that's the point. It's your favourite.

Leave it there.

Don't try and justify that it was the harder goal to score, because it wasn't. You just preferred it.

The end.

 

[Gladystweet]

You could change this poll to:

Have you ever kicked a ball before?

No

Yes

I think the results would be similar given some of the reasoning behind these answers.

If you still hate Rooney for leaving 13 years ago, fine. If you are Icelandic and love Gylfi, fine.

But seriously, don't try and say Sigurdsson's goal is in any way harder to score than Rooney's or it makes you look like you haven't got a clue.

I went for Gylfi..and I love Rooney. I'm not judging the technique, I thought Rooney's was harder to score.
I'm just going off which of the two made me dribble more.

 

[banno]

Could easily say the same about Sigurdsson's, then. Any keeper on his line could have chested it down never mind caught it. They're both opportunistic strikes, neither flew in the top corner.

No you couldn't. Maybe Siggy knew the keeper was off his line like rooney knew Hart was off his line so in each case the right technique was used to result in a goal. Both could have horribly gone wrong but they didn't.


By the way you are wrong if you think I am dissing Rooney because I have been one of his biggest defenders/fans on here.

 

[Kever10]

I went for Gylfi..and I love Rooney. I'm not judging the technique, I thought Rooney's was harder to score.
I'm just going off which of the two made me dribble more.

Yeah, I understand that, and that's fair enough, if it's your favourite, it's your favourite, there's no arguments on that at all.

Just the people saying Sigurdsson's was the more difficult skill is what I'm baffled by.

 

[Gladystweet]

Yeah, I understand that, and that's fair enough, if it's your favourite, it's humour favourite, there's no arguments on that at all.

Just the people saying Sigurdsson's was the more difficult skill is what I'm baffled by.

They both required skill, just different skills is all. Just opinions I suppose.

 

[banno]

That just isn't true though is it?!

Taking one joule of energy of the shot and it leads to the very real possibility of Ogbonna and/or Hart getting back.

He could not have hit it lower, that's a given.


FFS it was a cracking goal needing great technique....I admit that but like others have said he had a big target to aim at and he hit it firm enough to evade anyone getting back. Still a big target and on target will be a goal.
So the margin of error can only be hitting it higher. When the ball crosses the line Hart is about 12 yards away (even after giving up running at full speed). This means even hitting even harder and even higher with even more top spin....something I'm not sure could obey the laws of physics.

So that basically means the margin of error means hitting it higher but slower; higher means more time, slower (obvs) means more time, taking power of means less top spin so more time....add those up and Joe Hart's getting back in time.

Then we add in the fact the ball is travelling at speed towards him meaning Rooney had very little time to make his calculations before hitting it, the ball is also bobbling....

So it's not even a case of 'just' getting it on target and furthermore even if it WERE, accomplishing that is so difficult it scarcely devalues the goal.

 

[Azzurri]

No you couldn't. Maybe Siggy knew the keeper was off his line like rooney knew Hart was off his line so in each case the right technique was used to result in a goal. Both could have horribly gone wrong but they didn't.


By the way you are wrong if you think I am dissing Rooney because I have been one of his biggest defenders/fans on here.

That's what I've just said, and what you told me I can't say? Whch is it?

Sigurdsson's goal would have been saved if the keeper was on his line. Surely you're not disputing that.

If on target means in for Rooney as you say, then it does for Sigurdsson. Of course, in both cases they didn't just need to be on target.

 

[Steve0]

Think it's the other way round. I've played a lot of football and know for a fact that i'd have more chance of scoring Sigurdsson's than Rooneys.

There's nothing remarkable about Siggurddson technique for the goal, hit a forward travelling ball that's sitting up nicely and it'll follow a similar path to that goal. And it's quite easy to do.

Anyone plumping for Siggy shouldn't be using the technique argument, it's crazy. The execution, accuracy, vision and audacity are what you should be arguing on.